Merging Battlefield Units

[Armatus]

Formations are definitely on the list of any player who enjoys the battles, there's lots of various discussions about how they can be improved.

I got to thinking about the merging unit feature in BFME 2, where you could select two units and order them to merge. They would automatically arrange themselves into a new combined formation

i.e.

Select a spear and an infantry unit merge them and the infantry arrange around the pikes protecting them from other infantry they might encounter while the pikes continue to do what they do best.

I've always wanted this feature well before BFME came out for Total War. I do understand I could group units in this manner, but it's not ...at least has not been in the order titles quite as streamlined especially if you wanted to do this mid battle; where it would be likely to have to resize your units to properly cover each other in this fashion. In addition you'd also have to order them to their new locations independently if they weren't already next to each other.

So what are you thoughts on having a merge function in the UI, above and beyond what we can do with groups?

[Destraex]

I kind of disgree.
I think its kinda realistic to suffer a penalty for having your units in disarray. The should be disorganised by the assault.

I think if your units run and then rally it should be micro manage time to get various units to stand in line together.

However in real life units running did get rallied by random commanders and fight as one. In game however I think their should be a penalty for this kind of unit not having known trusted centrurions but maybe one from a different unit. Also fighting alongside men you do not necessarily know well. If centurions have stats this would be the time to show them.

Perhaps after a lull in the combat. A 5 minute lull where two units are not engaged and have lost enough men you could then have a button ungrey itself and allow you to merge them. But not while engaged.

Same goes for men routing. But there should be no time limit. Just that they are not engaged and have been successfully rallied. They should then be allowed to form a hodgepodge unit with less morale and stats. Or more in an exceptional centurions case.

[Mr.noob]

No sir.

But, by merging 2 same units when both them lost half of their troops will be fine i think.

[Destraex]

If heis talking about merging two fresh units I would say this is a no no.
Armies are taught to fight in the formations they are taught to fight in.

[Rorarii]

Persian units by default were a number of spearmen ranks in front and the rest archers. if you wanted to merge archers or spearmen in such a unit, i don't see a problem.

But expecting legionaries to merge with archers when they haven't been trained to do so, then NO!!

R

[Theo]

Yes, yes, yes.

This has been a feature sorely missing it total games. Archers should definitely be able to merge into phalanx formations for example. Historically, "units" were never homogenous groups of, for instance, swordsmen. They were composed spears, bows, swords, etc etc.

As it is right now, TW games are more like gimmicky RTS's than actual battlefield-simulations.

I'd actually go way further than you and say that each unit produced should possess spears, bows, and swords. This would prevent lame "strats" like archer spamming or swordsmen-rushing. Ofc the player should be allowed to adjust the composition of each unit to an extent.

[hochmeister devin]

CA will never do this because it would end up with people making super explot unuts that cant lose. Imagine this you take a macedonian phalanx add some cretan archers and some strong swordsmen, now you got a unit that can defeat any infantry it faces! Or you take heavy cataphracts and add some horse archers to it so now your shock cavalry will be shooting arrows and everyone and decimate people on the charge! Jack lusted said that there not going to let spears and swords be in the same unit, so i doubt archers and spears will be in. Its a good idea, but wont work in total war because of how they made battles work.

[krisslanza]

It'd be a massive balancing headache really. This is a moment where gameplay has to step in over reality.

[Lord Dakier]

It'd be a massive balancing headache really. This is a moment where gameplay has to step in over reality.

We see these moments with a lot of idea threads these days! Couldn't agree more.

[Destraex]

I agree with mixed units hat start mixed and can separate and rejoin. But only if it's historical and only if they are specialized.

[Ichon]

I am pretty sure this question was already asked and answered with a no. It would be nice to see mixed weapons but primary and secondary will have to do for RTW2.

[Mr.noob]

The last strategy game looks similiar to Total war series i've ever known that has mixed unit between bow, sword & spear is ....Takeda 3.

Not sure if true.

[West3634]

I would like to see barbarian units dispersed, like peasants where. And could easily be merged into big groups. Maybe for romans we could merge some units so that on the big scale when units move it looks more realistic instead of blocks (maybe this is more for other factions), but it would be nice if units looked more like an organised army rather than individual units

[Armatus]

I don't think this makes super units, they would be cumbersome to maneuver (realistically) but I think the benefit of this is great when units begin to suffer heavy loses.

We can see descriptions of this in the strategikon from the onset of formation arrangement, now I now this is some centuries down the road, but I certainly don't think this would be anything new.

For example, when you are loosing all training extends towards adapting to the circumstances at hand, getting defense and working together with other soldiers is practically a given, reflecting that in the game in some fashion simplifies process for the player.

Additionally I've done this myself where I've actually combined a unit in loose form with a unit in tight form. I'm not really sure of the benefit sometimes it seems to be effective and other times not. It really depends on what you're going up against.

Example we know loose formed units suffer defensive and morale far more quickly, but if you aligning them over another unit does that change?

[CelestialGuy]

Or they could do it like Age of Empires 3 Chinese faction where you build mix units as one "unit". In AOE3 the Chinese can build banner armies, and each banner army is a mix of two units. Eg. spearman plus archers as one "block". They would be weaker than pure spearmans or pure archers units.

[Wodeson]

Mixing troops wasn't uncommon.

A few ranks of spearmen protecting deeper ranks of bow appears again and again through the ancient and medieval periods. Similarily a few back ranks of bowmen giving ranged support to heavy infantry formations isn't unknown.

Sometimes the practise is formalised in examples such as Legionary Archers and Persian Sparabara. Sometimes it's as ad-hoc as Anglo-Norman Knights dismounting to stiffen the front rank of the spear levy.

There's even examples of mixed foot and mounted troops, such as Egyptian Chariot Runners, Samurai Attendants, Elephant Escorts.

It's only up to CA if they want to implement this sort of thing or not.

[Armatus]

You know you're right now that I recall, I had read about the composition of the "legion" some years ago and just realized there are mixed troops within them.

Anyone an expert on Legions to confirm?

[West3634]

One thing i do hate is having small units of 60/200 men or so, differing amounts. Obviously i dont want to merge them in campaign because that means i need to recruit more, instead i liked to retrain.

[Armatus]

You would still be able to retrain them in the campaign game as merging would only take affect on the battlefield as a function of user control.

[Litoralis]

I like Armatus's idea. A simple merge on the battle level only might by doable. Similar to War Game: European Escalation, where you could break tanks off of a unit formation to flank the enemy, and then merge them back.

I'm thinking you would be able to break off like 30 soldiers from a unit of 100 or so and try to flank or something, and then bring them back together. You would have a maximum unit population size, so you couldn't just assemble a hoard of all these units stacked up in battle.

Perhaps, though, this would be unrealistic on an ancient warfare game, where armies were based on larger units. I may be wrong about that, though. Also, this might be of limited use and perhaps is too much micromanagement-- you could just use another unit to do whatever you want to do with the split off unit.